Monday, May 28, 2012

We’ve had quite a debate going in the comments section of my
last post. The sparing back and forth about Greek influence on the early
Christian church has evoked strong emotions on both sides. I feel like I’m
sitting at the net in a tennis match.

Seriously, though, the link between Christianity and Greek
philosophy is a subject we should investigate. The Hellenistic period itself is
interesting, although enigmatic at the same time. Named by Professor D.S.
Droysan, a German academic of the nineteenth century, Hellenistic refers to the time span from 322 B.C.to 30 B.C in Eastern
Europe and Western Asia when Greek culture became widespread after the death of
Alexander. Using one word to characterize the period is risky because the period
was not uniform, but the term is now universal so we have to use it.

When Alexander died, his associates fought for control of
his legacy.

As the map above shows, four “kingdoms” resulted from their division
of the spoils. This map is a snapshot in time which does not represent any long
term political organization of the period. We only use it here to visually
represent the Hellenistic world.

Our focus in this post is on the cultural influences at work
and their impact on the people who would eventually be exposed to Paul’s
teaching – the Hellenistic gentiles. That knowledge will then lead to a
discussion about the fusion of Hellenistic thought and Christianity.

The fundamental character of the Hellenistic era was found
in its cities which acted as engines for cultural development. These urban
centers were controlled by Greeks, not the locals who were forced into the role
of a proletariat class. The controlling faction was made up of rich
aristocrats, who ruled autocratically, despite the trappings of the traditional
Greek political model. These “patricians” took on a bourgeois character -- living
off inherited wealth and using slaves to provide the labor they required. Socially
they were arrogant and focused on maintaining their lofty position. Still, they
spent lavishly to beautify their cities and were open to new ideas brought in
from the outside.

Education was given a high priority during the Hellenistic
Age because the aristocrats wanted their offspring to be “citizens of the
world”. Let me quote from my April 21, 2011 article on Greek education to
provide additional detail.

“Paideia, the technique of teaching in the
Greek system turns into anxesis,
which is the same word in Hellenistic Greek with a new meaning. No longer an
educational method, the word now meant attainment of a cultural ideal through
education.

Wherever the Greeks went – Babylon, Egypt,
or Susiana – they brought their own institutions with them, including the
schools. An education was essential in a foreign land because the Greeks had to
train their sons to be successful adults. This “classical education” was now
nothing more than preparation for a Greek way of life.

This concept of education had now advanced
from the subsidiary role in Plato’s world to an equal player in the development
of the rational Hellenistic adult. Hellenists saw their education as the most
valuable asset his life, as evidenced by those who were buried with grave
markers highlighting their educational accomplishments. Stilpo, when asked if
he needed to be compensated for losses incurred during the pillage of Megara
said, “I have lost nothing that belongs to me, I still have my culture,
my logos”.

Speaking of logos,
let’s move on to discuss new philosophical doctrines that emerged during the
Hellenistic period. The most important of these was Stoicism, first introduced
by Zeno circa 300 B.C. Stoic theology asserts that the world is divinely
governed by a predetermined plan of God. That plan orders the universe in a
rational way, and man must seek to understand the world to perceive God’s plan.
To support the requirement for rationality, the Stoics created a view of
physics based on Heraclitus and Aristotle. This view places in Zeus’ hands the
ability to place the logos or spark in
the body of every human being.

Let me list some of the major tenets of Stoic theology.

1. There is one God who created
the universe (some Stoics kept the door

open for polytheism).

2. God infuses man with a spirit –
Logos.

3. When a person dies his spark
returns to the divine spirit.

4. A person’s soul lives forever
in the Isle of the Blest.

5. Men must strive to live in
conformity with the divine plan.

6. What happens to the body does
not matter as long as the soul is pure.

7. A wise man exhibits the
qualities of temperance, judgment, bravery, and

justice.

8. All men are equal as human
beings.

This reads like Christian philosophy 300 years ahead of itself,
doesn’t it?

But the Stoics go deeper, trying to understand the
relationship between the cosmic world and the world of man. For example, they addressed the paradox of evil in the world if God is intrinsically
good. They concluded that evil was necessary because there had to be an
opposite to good. And there were other justifications for evil offered. War appears
evil but at the same time reduces the population. Mice are troublesome but
having them reminds us to be clean.

The Stoics also thought about how to live in a world where our fate is beyond our control. What value does prayer have if our lives are predetermined? Some believed
that prayer has no purpose other than easing the mind. Others believed that
prayer acts as the acknowledgement of the power of God and the acceptance of
one’s fate.

So we see these Stoic attempts to rationalize the most
difficult questions of theology. Over the five hundred year period from
Zeno to Seneca these beliefs evolved, adapting to criticism and the changing
world.

Now we can move on to the other Important philosophy of the
Hellenistic period --- Epicureanism. Simple and bundled neatly in a package,
this philosophy attempts to simplify life in a way that rationalizes human
behavior.

While the Stoics only accepted the notion of sensation, the
Epicureans embraced it. Epicurus, the founder, asserted that if man desired
physical pleasure and sought to avoid physical pain he should spend his life
actively seeking the former. Gods were not important to him because he
believed that if they exist, they allow the universe to operate on its own.
Belief in God, then, comes down to personal preference. There is no afterlife so living to please God has no purpose.

In these two theologies we have the product of Hellenistic
thinkers who explored the same problems
we face today. How do we characterize God and our relationship with him? Is
life predetermined and what control do we have over our lives. What are the
consequences of sin in this life and the next if it exists.

There is no question in my mind that Hellenistic thinking
influenced Christianity through the beliefs extant when Paul traveled the
Hellenistic world. Stoicism, in particular, appears as a precursor to the Christian
world view. We’ll discuss this further in the next post.

Friday, May 11, 2012

So we arrive at the second century A.D. and find the
Catholic Church’s administrative apparatus in place and the new church
flourishing. As mentioned in recent posts, the destruction of the temple by the
Romans and the death of the Jerusalem Christians is a common marking point for
the end of Jewish control of Christianity.
That is not to say that it marked the final split between the two
religions, however. The separation actually took a couple of centuries.

One can understand this link between Judaism and
Christianity by recalling the story of Jacob and Esau who, as brothers, fought
each other in the womb. Both religions were variations of messianic philosophy.
In the Jewish case, the belief was derived from second century B.C. apocalyptic
literature. In the Christian case, Jesus was the messiah and his resurrection
the foundation of the belief system. But the resurrected messiah was
incomprehensible to the Jewish religion because it did not allow a kinship
between man and God.

The Romans did not differentiate between Jews and Christians
until 96 A.D. when the Fiscus Judiacus (tax on Jews) was implemented. This tax
was imposed on all Jews of the empire as reparations for the revolt against
Rome that resulted in the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Christians were
not required to pay the tax.

Of course there were cases in the first century when the
Christians were singled out for persecution, first under Nero and then
Domitian, but our interest for this post lies specifically in the second
century.

The following are the major currents we’ll be discussing:

The development of Christian dogma

Apologists

The heresies

The persecutions

The first three describe aspects of the development of the
Catholic Church and the fourth the Roman reaction against the behavior of
Christians.

As time went on, the Christian dogma was refined as scholars
analyzed the sacred writings and came to conclusions about their meaning. The
dogma was build brick by brick, sentence by sentence until it became the law of
the church. The dogma was defended by apologists who sought to put it in the
context of the history of man and the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Simultaneous
with the defense was the offence – working against the many variants of the main
belief system. These heretical outliers threatened to undermine and dilute the
exclusive role of the Catholic Church as protector of the Christian theology.

Below are some brief sketches about the lives of early
Christian theologians.

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (50-108), stressed the
relationship between the teachings of Jesus and the hierarchy of the church -- that
Christians should obey their bishops. He was martyred in Rome.

Justin Martyr (100-165), an apologist, was one of the
earliest Christian writers. Born in Judea and martyred in Rome, Justin believed
that the Greek philosophers took their essential ideas from the Hebrew Bible,
proving the eternalness of the Christian belief system. He labeled Socrates a
Christian. In his Dialog with Trypho, Justin demonstrated why Christians
are the true people of God.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (140-202) was an apologist known
for his book Against Heresies. Irenaeus took specific aim at Gnostics
who were causing a great threat to the church. Gnostics believed that a person
could achieve salvation through the acquisition of secret knowledge of God.
Furthermore some Gnostics saw Jesus as the vehicle that brought this knowledge
to the human race. Irenaeus succeeded to the title of Bishop of Lyon when he absent
in Rome during a massacre there.

Tertullian (160-225) was an early Christian writer from
Carthage who, like Irenaeus, was an apologist writing against heresies.
Tertullian has been labeled the “Father of Western Theology” and was the first
to use the term “trinity”.

Origen (185-253) was an Alexandrian scholar and theologian,
whose father was martyred during the reign of Septimius Severus. One of
Origen’s important contributions was First Principles a book which
describes God as the logos, the Holy Spirit, the doctrine of sin and
redemption, and the Bible.

Throughout the second century the church moved forward
developing its theology and solidifying its administrative apparatus as the
only true interpreter of Christian theology through its link to the savior. But
progress was also disrupted by the Roman persecutions which were much more
serious in the 100s than at any other time. I was surprised that this “Golden
Age” of the empire with its superior leadership could have been so cruel to the
Christians – particularly during the time of Marcus Aurelius, the stoic.

Prior to Marcus, the emperors of the second century followed
the outline of Trajan who specified to Pliny that Christians not be
sought out but rather tried in court if evidence of their guilt could be presented.
There is no question that the persecutions were more severe under Marcus but we
lack evidence that he created a new more restrictive policy. The persecutions appear
to be local, originating with the provincial magistrates and there has been speculation
about Marcus’ involvement in them. For example, one academic felt that Marcus’
personality was impacted by the troubles of his reign – incessant wars, famine,
and disease, and these made him turn his anger against the Christians.

Below is one of the few quotes we have from Marcus Aurelius
about Christians.

That soul which is
ever ready, even now presently (if need be) from the body, whether by way of
extinction, or dispersion, or continuation in another place and estate to be
separated, how blessed and happy is it! But this readiness of it, it must proceed, not from obstinate and peremptory resolution of the mind, violently and passionately set upon Opposition, as Christians are wont; but
from a peculiar judgment; with discretion and gravity, so that others may be
persuaded also and drawn to the like example, but without any noise and
passionate exclamations.

In other words, to him, the soul must be properly prepared
to leave the body at the end of one’s life. That preparation must take a form
that sets an example for others. This he contrasts with the Christian attitude
which is “obstinate and violently set upon opposition”, like tragic actors.

After Marcus, Severus returned to the previously established
policy of Trajan with some exceptions. For example he sought to prohibit conversions
to Christianity and Judaism. There were some severe persecutions in Africa
during the early 200s A.D.

Here we close the story of the second century and move on. By
the time another century had passed, the Christian church was moving rapidly
toward official recognition by the empire. Then, as we’ve discussed before, the
church would rise as the empire was moving toward collapse.

Saturday, May 5, 2012

When you dig into the secular writing about Jesus of
Nazareth, or even the Scriptures for that matter, you notice information that
appears to contradict what we have been taught about the peaceful nature of the
man. Some quotes suggest that he may have been a militant revolutionary in
addition to a charismatic spiritual leader. The subject of this article is to look
at the history and the quotes from our sources, to see what we may uncover.

Religion is one of the most difficult topics for a historian
because it treads on human sensitivity.
There are 2 billion Christians in the world who have accepted the accuracy
of the story of Jesus, as portrayed in the gospels. I do not question those
beliefs, but at the same time, I want to look for the truth which results from
an analytical approach to the information extant on the subject.

The subject matter in this instance is made more difficult
because there are heavy political agendas at work – understandable at the beginning
but now dogma after two millennia. The early Christians sought to give meaning
to the events that overwhelmed them when their leader was crucified so their
writings reflected the ardor they felt. Later, the fully formed Catholic Church
attacked the Jewish people because it wanted to separate itself as a new
religion and show favoritism to the Romans who had just gone to war against the
Jews. The Jews, themselves, tried to distance themselves from the early
Christians who they saw as seriously deviant from the law of the Torah.

And now we begin with the “cleansing of the temple”

Matt 21:12. “And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all
who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the
money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be
called a house of prayer'; but you make it a den of robbers."

John 2:14. “In the temple he found
those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money changers at
their business. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep
and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers
and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take
these things away; you shall not make my father’s house a house of trade.” His
disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for thy house will consume me.”

What really happened here? Was there
violence? It appears so.

The above drawing shows the temple
layout. The holy sanctuary is in the center, and on either side are open areas
referred to as the Court of the Gentiles. It was here that tables were set up
by merchants to sell sacrificial animals. In other words they were providing a
necessary function for those wishing to sacrifice in the temple.

The temple had a significant
security force. A cohort of Roman soldiers was stationed at the Antonia
Fortress and there was also a Jewish “police” force protecting the holy site.

To quote from the Jewish
encyclopedia – “The priests and Levites of the Second Temple were organized
into groups, with proper officers or captains. Under the high priest the senior
officer was more generally designated as his lieutenant. The officer named in
the passages quoted in Acts 4:1 corresponds to the one given the same title by
Josephus. He is the captain of the Levitical temple-guard, a body of police,
referred to also in Luke 22:4. The officers that assisted in the arrest of
Jesus cited in John 18:12, may have belonged to this company.”

The temple area was a busy place
with perhaps 20,000 people there at one time.

The passages above describe the driving of merchants and money changers
out of the temple. How many were driven out -- one, ten, one hundred? If Jesus
wanted to create a memorable demonstration, it would have to have been large
enough to include physical violence. The Temple police would not have allowed
the commotion to escalate before getting involved. Perhaps Jesus had a large
group with him (200?). They would have held off the security forces while the
demonstration was underway, and then fought their way free.

The Temple episode is further tied to subsequent events, the next being Jesus’
betrayal by Judas. Judas led the authorities to Jesus and his followers and
kissed him as a means of identification. They must have been in a secret
location because the Pharisees would not have paid Judas money to find someone
they could find themselves. He had to be giving away their location. Were they
in hiding because of the violence at the temple?

When they Pharisees arrive at the garden, the following happens:

Mark 14:43 “And immediately, while he was still speaking,
Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from
the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given
them a sign saying, “The one I shall kiss the man; seize him and lead him away
under guard.” And when he came, he went up to him at once, and said “Master!”
And he kissed him. And they laid hands on him and seized him. But one of those
who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut
off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber,
with swords and clubs to capture me?”

So Jesus’ associates were armed. It doesn’t say who wielded
the sword so we don’t know if it was one of the eleven remaining disciples, but
Jesus undoubtedly had more than eleven men with him, perhaps a body guard or a
small militia. The “twelve” always stand as his closest followers, but there
are several occasions in the Bible where a larger group is mentioned. In Luke,
for example, Jesus sends out seventy to preach. Also why did the accusers feel they needed to be armed in going to apprehend Jesus? Seems like they expected resistance.

Note the following Gospel passages that reference the use of
swords and their purpose.

Matt 10:34. “Think not that I am come to send peace on
earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

Luke 22:36. “Then
said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise
his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written
must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors:
for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two
swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.”

Where Jesus
followers always armed? Obviously we don’t know, but again, there is this
subtle thread of militancy.

Now Jesus is
arrested and we segue to the trial. There has been much debate about this. One
thing for certain is that crucifixion is punishment for sedition against Rome
and stoning is the Jewish punishment for crimes against the religion, so Pilate
must have been convinced of the reality of Jesus’ crimes against Rome in order
to condemn him. We know so little about Pilate and have no primary source
information about this episode, so it’s hard to guess what was in his mind. I
doubt that he was the wimp portrayed in the Gospels – letting the Pharisees
talk him into killing Jesus.

“So when Pilate saw that he was gaining
nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his
hands before the crowd saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it
yourselves.” But they can’t see to it themselves and at the same time use the
Roman punishment. In the next sequence Roman guards take him to the Praetorium
were he is scourged – totally under control of the Romans.

These three
scenes from the Gospels give us a hint of militancy at work. But are we
imagining something that isn’t there? It’s not unusual for historians to
consider facts detrimental to the image of Jesus as true. Their reasoning -- no
Gospel writer would knowingly hurt Jesus’ image unless the facts were accurate.
The most famous case of this is the baptism by John. Explaining why a sinless
man would need to be purified had been problematic for the apologists over the
centuries.

In the cases
cited above we have just a few threads to go on. Why were Jesus and his
followers hiding, until their location was given away by Judas? Were the events
in the Temple violent and seditious as seen through the eyes of the Procurator?
Why did Pilate condemn Jesus to a Roman death? We just don’t have definitive
answers.

I have no problem
imaging Jesus as militant for his cause. The mission in Galilee was a failure
and the people did not understand the urgency of his message. With time passing
and the end getting closer he may have felt an increasing urgency to make the
people realize what was coming. He was certainly militant in thought and speech
regarding the poor and downtrodden. Why not militant by action also?